Foreign Policy Analysis

The beginning of the political crisis in Syria, each regional and trans-regional actors have adopted different policies based on their interests and goals in relation to this country. Syria is an exceptional issue for countries in the region and the world's powers like the United States of America, and any transformation in that form might have a fundamental impact on the interests of each of these regional and global powers. Turkey as a regional power and the United States has always been present in the Syrian crisis as a regional power based on its interests. But the United' support of the present groups in Syria has sought to fight ISIS extremists, which Turkey has called for terrorist groups to reduce the US and Turkey relations. The present study was conducted using descriptive-analytic method and using documentation sources to provide a theoretical framework, the question of why Turkey is against United States about the Syrian Kurdish issue? This study investigates the presence of United States in Syria and the support of Kurdish groups, as well as the reaction that Turkey and Iran have been involved in. The findings of this article indicate that the United States support the Kurdish groups in northern Syria has led to conflict of interest between the two countries.

In many aspects, U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy-making was in sharp contrast with that of his predecessors, particularly post-WWII presidents. His hostility toward the long-lasting liberal international order that was crafted and maintained by former presidents, his eccentric ways of solving foreign policy issues, and his unusual rhetoric regarding U.S. allies and adversaries, are all indications of his “unorthodox” foreign policy approach. In an attempt to explain this unorthodoxy, in this article we aim to examine Trump’s cognitions and compare them to those of his post-WWII predecessors. In particular, we have measured the cognitive complexity score for each of these presidents to determine Trump’s position among them. In order to do so, we have calculated the Flesch-Kincaid readability score of the presidents’ verbal statements, assuming that the complexity of the statements indicates the complexity of their author’s thoughts. The results have clearly demonstrated that Trump was at the lowest level of cognitive complexity among the presidents under examination, and since a low level of cognitive complexity pertains to viewing the situation from limited perspectives, a low need for broader information, adhering to a limited number of policy options, ignoring advice, and decisiveness, we may reasonably infer that his cognitive simplicity played an important role in the unorthodoxy of his foreign policy approach.